To reform small house policy, Hong Kong must heed the concerns of its indigenous villagers
Malcolm Merry says any review of the small house policy must address indigenous villagers' argument that it is a rightful way for them to share in HK's prosperity
Criticism of Hong Kong's small house policy and suggestions to change it have force but they do not address the arguments of the indigenous community or show understanding of the rural viewpoint.
To older indigenous people, the turning of the small-house right into money is an exercise of traditional freedoms and a form of participation in the prosperity that Hong Kong has enjoyed during the past 60 years. In that time, the old stability and certainties of their communities have gone. A quiet farming life, centred on village, family, custom and land, has given way to a hectic, more commercial existence.
Those that held land near the new towns have seen the government take it and sell it to developers who in turn have made handsome profits from building flats there, so that purchasers from town can live in more pleasant conditions. For much of this period, the property market has boomed.
It is surely no coincidence that the small house policy, which provides subsidised land for the building of houses for indigenous families, was introduced during an era of great expansion of public rental housing and construction of new towns. The policy was seen by rural folk as a reward for their cooperation.
To villagers, it is simply unfair that the rest of Hong Kong should enjoy the benefits of the transformation made possible by the development of the New Territories, yet at the same time resent the desire of the descendants of its original inhabitants to have a share of those benefits. They see it as inconsistent of the Hong Kong government to proclaim its belief in the free market yet try to prevent them from selling their rights and their land to the highest bidder.
The rural congress, the Heung Yee Kuk, does not accept as legitimate the restrictions that the administration has tried to impose on those rights, including limits on the size of houses and conditions upon qualification for a land grant. It argues that before 1898, their forefathers could build on their land freely and the restrictions are a breach of the promises made by the British that there would be no expropriation of land or interference with custom.